There is an entire section devoted to games--the requirements are different. Go look them up.
Microsoft does maintain labs to do testing of products awaiting logo certification. It seems reasonable to guess that there is a fee to cover that cost.
Here's a summary of the logo requirements, from Microsoft's Logo site:
List of Windows Fundamentals Requirements 1.1 Perform primary functionality and maintain stability 1.2 Any kernel-mode drivers that the application installs must pass verification testing on Windows XP 1.3 Any device or filter drivers included with the application must pass Windows HCT testing 1.4 Perform Windows version checking correctly 1.5 Support Fast User Switching and Remote Desktop 1.6 Support new visual styles 1.7 Support switching between tasks
Installation Requirements List 2.1 Do not attempt to replace files that are protected by Windows File Protection 2.2 Migrate from earlier versions of Windows 2.3 Do not overwrite non-proprietary files with older versions 2.4 Do not require a reboot inappropriately 2.5 Install to Program Files by default 2.6 Install any shared files that are not side-by-side to the correct locations 2.7 Support Add or Remove Programs properly 2.8 Support "All Users" installs 2.9 Support Autorun for CDs and DVDs
Data and Settings Requirements List 3.1 Default to the correct location for storing user-created data 3.2 Classify and store application data correctly 3.3 Deal gracefully with access-denied scenarios 3.4 Support running as a Limited User
This may be an initial glimpse at how Microsoft could introduce Digital Restrictions Management by ensuring all retail hardware and software products are approved by Redmond.
Logo requirements exist to ensure a quality user experience. NOT to force DRM onto the world through Office Depot. This is biased speculation on the part of the submitter, and timothy, objective as always, posted it on the front page.
All of the United States' chemical arsenal is slated for retirement and destruction. Specifically, all of our chemical munitions and agent stockpiles will be destroyed by 2007, in accordance with the UN's Chemical Weapons Convention. Read here.
I read an article recently (I wish I could remember where) that mentioned the Army is having some trouble disposing VX gas. The article mentioned that the EPA wouldn't issue a permit to move the VX to incinerators, because it's too dangerous. As such, it's being left in storage for now.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that most universities have a mixed computing environment.
The University of Washington, for example, has PC's, Macs and Unix server access for the general student population. I am a (former) computer science student, and my department is even more heterogeneous, and projects are done in the appropriate environment. We kernel hacked in Compilers, and so worked in Linux. We used Windows in Graphics and the games capstone, because the IDE and hardware support was much better. Many students used Java (some coded in Windows, some in emacs/vi) for their AI projects. I think this diversity is the way to go. I spent less time fighting with the tools and more time learning concepts than if had I been forced into (or out of) a specific environment.
Limiting the choice of computing environments and/or specific software solutions is dumb. It is like excluding certain sized hammers for carpentry, even though they might be the best hammers for the task at hand.
The curriculum would have to change every year according to Microsoft's marketing direction
Most schools now have a largely Microsoft computing environment, and they don't change thier curriculums around on Microsoft's whim. Universities (or rather, specific departments in the university) judge each hardware or software purchase based on their need, price, student benefit, etc. If a prof wants the latest PC's with Windows 2003 so he can teach a.NET class, then he'll have to justify it just like a prof who wanted to set up a lab of SGI boxes for an advanced graphics class.
You're right. It's still a disservice to those students however. Microsoft's happens to be the toolset used, in some fashion, by 90% of the computing world. Ideally, all alternatives would be present at a university setting, and students would receive exposure to each of them.
This couldn't be more true. You should use the right tool for the job. Sometimes it's Microsoft, sometimes Apple and sometimes *nix.
I'm not talking about computer-related studies either. As an example: what about psych students putting together a final presentation? Imagine trying to do that without powerpoint.
It's just plain stupid to lock 7000 people into one toolset.
You betray your bias. No one is going to convince you because you've decided to not be convinced. There's plenty of online resources which detail Microsoft's features (imaginative, stable, etc) and you should be competant enough to find them. A review of the upcoming Office on ZDNet would surely discuss new features, and comment on their "imaginative"-ness and stability. I would guess that most of your Microsoft-related reading to date has been on Slashdot, or sites with a similar outlook. You likely choose to read those sites, and those sites only. When you do come across a pro-Microsoft writing (such as this news post), your mindset is one of disbelief and extreme skepticism, not of objectivity.
If Microsoft hires the "best and brightest" college graduates, then why does so much of their software suck and why is all of it utterly devoid of any imagination?!
These statements are completely subjective. Saying that all of Microsoft's features were stolen from others is just as proposterous as claiming that all of them were completely original. You could make the same (clearly vacuous) claims of General Motors, Ford, Honda, etc--after all, no one company invented the internal combustion engine, automatic transmission, or rack-and-pinion steering themselves. All parties in any industry make innovations, and all parties borrow on each other's work. The phenomenon is known as progress.
You do demostrate ignorance, as your posts lack objectivity, factual evidence or finesse. A well-formed post, with some logic to support your stance, would help convince others in the future.
Practically zero in that the folks who run deep space probes do maintainence--rebooting circuits, flushing data buffers, moving parts around, etc. I have no idea if the power source has needed any such operations during its history.
Submarines use active fission, right? Pioneer's only harnesses energy from radioactive decay. It's much safer, and very low maintenance (for Pioneer, it's practically zero). I wasn't really positive on how often nuclear vessels need a refuelling--I thought I had read that the Nimitz's go for 8-10 years.
You're definitely right about nuclear is by far the safest energy available today. Its problem is that the word "nuclear" scares the bajesus out of folks who don't know any better.
...are really cool. Nuclear powered naval vessels don't last a third as long as Pioneer's radioactive batteries have.
It would be great if we could roll radioactive waste into similar devices to power cars, remote buildings, or even laptops--if we could effectively shield the power source with a small light enclosure.
My problem with this statement is that you're assuming that Microsoft will do this. Just to screw up OSS.
First, what benefit would that action afford the customer? Why would they want plain documents level-0 encrypted? It'll break all their non-Office tools, like intranet search tools. It does not improve _any_ customer scenario relating to standard open Office data.
Then answer is that it will only screw the customer. That's stupid, because it will not work towards Microsoft's goal of selling more copies of Office.
Immediately assuming that MS will do *anything* that won't improve a customer scenario is paranoid, and deluded. It's like saying that MS's 50,000 employees are sitting around all day, trying to think up new ways of BF'ing their customers. I know quite a few folks who work there, and it certainly isn't their MO. Name one successful company that works that way? (Don't say 'Microsoft'--that's asinine)
Why in God's name would you make DRM the default? That would mean that email, by default, could not be printed or forwarded. Word docs, by default, couldn't be passed around and edited by a team.
Ease of use is inversely porportional to security. DRM is a pain in the ass. Microsoft's customers (and Microsoft knows this) will save DRM for data that really needs the security. Cutting the cord, as you put it, will probably drive many customers away from Office. From Microsoft's point of view, this is A Bad Thing.
BTW, saying "This hypothetical situation *might* happen in the future, therefore my argument is true" is a logical fallacy of truely epic scale. If you want to conclusively 'win' an argument, you'll need to use factual data.
It is Microsoft who will control those rights, not you. You will only have the control that MS thinks you should have for as long as they think you should have it. You won't even own your own documents.
You restated your point as this--I'd really like to hear a justification: We do not even have a method in theory where Microsoft would not be in control let alone in practise.
I still think these statements are absolute BS. I'll put down some thoughts, and then hand the burden of proof to you.
There are third party DRM solutions, some of which already integrate with Office. SyncCast, Perimele's Protector, Adhaero Doc were the first ones I found with Google--more exist. How is Microsoft's DRM going to be any different, in theory or practice, than these? I submit that it'll at least be more user-friendly, because of MS's ability to more tightly integrate DRM into Office's UI. The MS DRM solution could also be more performant and secure, again because of more knowledge and tighter integration with the app.
On the contrary it is based on what is theoreticaly possible.
Looking into one of these 3rd-party DRM solutions, I found a whitepaper on Adhaero's website. Its a little low on nitty-gritty details, and high on marketing, but it describes the essentials of a DRM system. The files are encrypted with Blowfish, and digitally signed. Included in each file is the permissions for the file and a list of users/groups who have access to the file. In order to open the file, you must be properly authenticated with an external server. Once authenticated, the server provides the key to decrypt the document. Attempting to forward the email, print the doc, edit the doc, etc fails because the Office app communicates to the DRM layer prior to doing any of those operations. Adhaero claims to have disabled cut/copy and print screening while DRM protected documents are viewed.
This is vulnerable in the following ways (as I see it):
- The key is stored in memory. However, it will be in the DRM process's memory space, and WinNT doesn't allow processes to read each-other's memory. Finding a vulnerability in WinNT's memory manager could expose this.
- Similarly, the unencrypted data is stored in Word/Outlook/Excel's memory. The same as above applies.
- You could snoop the video buffer for the image of the protected content. I have no idea if Windows allows any app to view this, or if it's only the provision of kernel-space code. I'll guess that Windows doesn't allow apps to view it, or there is a mechanism to make Windows deny viewing it (because this is such an obvious weakness).
- The user could stick their monitor, face down, on a Xerox machine and photocopy the data. The best engineered cryptosystem in the world cannot prevent this sort of maliciousness. Even the provably perfect One-Time Pad fails when the possessor of the plaintext hands it over to an attacker.
To speak to your original statement: I'd like to know why MS couldn't sell a server app which handles certificates, keys and proper authentication for DRM users. If your shop deployed such a server for your DRM users, I don't see any need for Microsoft be involved (after selling you the software). I'll go out on a limb and suggest that this may be a feature for the upcoming Windows Server 2003. As the admin, you would run that server, and you'd be the ultimate authority on the operation of DRM in your shop. Why again does Microsoft control all your documents in this case?
The 'theory' about DRM I've seen bantied about (which may be the theory you alluded to) is that you cannot protect data once it's in someone's head. In case you're thinking about that, then you need to realize that Office DRM isn't about absolute control of the information that a given user authors. If said user wanted to be absolutely sure that the information was only seen by an absolutely trusted audience, he'd never write it down. It would stay in his head.
Office DRM is about stopping accidental (or unknowing) leakage of sensitive data. Say I'm the boss at IniTech, LLC. We're developing a new console system (let's call it the PlayXBox). Joe random tester without DRM forwards the specs for the cool new system to a friend ("hey, he's a friend. what harm could it do?") outside the company. It's posted on slashdot and Oh Shit--our investors are now pissed and we're gonna lose money. Fast forward to the future, and we're working on PlayXBox]|[, but now we have DRM. When Joe random testor wants to forward specs to his buddy, an error message pops up that says he doesn't have permission to. He has to think twice now. If he's hellbent on mailing his buddy, he certainly can (by just retyping the spec sheet), but its now obviously intentional, and malign. He's _way_ more likely to get fired.
DRM is not the end-all solution to information security (and Microsoft didn't bill it as such). It's just another barrier keeping internal data internal. I'm guessing that corps that do deploy DRM and use it for sensitive data will have less leaks that those corps that don't. That's what Microsoft is marketing anyway.
<tangent> You said a couple more things I'd like to address: Do you know how many managers I have had tell me that they don't care about Microsoft prices? That as long as everyone pays it the competition is equal? That it just gets passed on to the customer anyway? That it helps them make a larger $ profit because their % profit looks smaller?
I've really been told all those things repeatedly. So yes, they will buy it, or enough of them will and Microsoft knows that. They know it will knock free software back considerably and yes, they know it will make them heaps of dollars (godammit they already have heaps, and mountains - can't even find a good word nowadays).
This sounds like a problem on the part of your managers, and not Microsoft. Despite all of Microsoft's shenanigans, all of their shady licencing, all of the rapid upgrade cycles, those dollars were in your manager's hands. They chose to give those dollars to Microsoft. Managers are empowered to make financial decisions, but they are also responsible for those decisions. Saying "Microsoft made me do it" is an attempt to skirt that responsibility. </tangent>
I apologize for grammar, spelling and semantic mistakes. It's 5:30AM my time:) Hopefully, this was a rational enough argument to be sufficient for your request. In conclusion, I'll restate my questions to you:
- Is there any theoritical reason DRM cannot work, discounting malicious users who we cannot protect against?
- Is there any reason Microsoft cannot implement a decent DRM scheme? Pointing to the bug history of MS products won't do. That history merely lowers the chance of getting a robust product out the door, and doesn't unilateraly exclude the possibility.
- Is there any reason Microsoft cannot offer a DRM scheme that allows the customer control of the documents?
It is Microsoft who will control those rights, not you. You will only have the control that MS thinks you should have for as long as they think you should have it. You won't even own your own documents.
And you know this for sure? Really? You work for Microsoft, in Office, on the DRM? Gee golly, I'm glad such an authoritative source told me about that.
The honest truth is that nothing about the implementation of Office's DRM has been released. Any broad statements like this is absolute conjecture (and in this case FUD).
If you were right, then it would be pretty fricking stupid on Microsoft's part. What kind of corp in their right mind would buy into a cryptosystem that they didn't control? How much money would MS make on Office then?
DRM in Office docs is optional too. The DRM is only used if the author of the information turns it on. The plain old Word format is still there, as is the new Office11 XML Word format.
Will DRM documents work in OpenOffice? Nope. BUT: Will the other formats that Office11 uses (by default)? Yep. Is Microsoft going to force anyone to use DRM? Nope. Does this mean that groups that have MSOffice and OpenOffice can still inter-operate? Yep.
Given that, is this some evil scheme to take over the world? Nope. Seriously, folks around here need to take a breather. Believe it or not, MS can just stick features in their products only because it makes them more attractive to their customers. Not everything MS does is geared towards destroying Linux/taking over the world.
2) Embedding DRM into the document format itself makes little sense, other than for the above reason. Why not just integrate proven and time-tested encryption algorithms into Office suites? If a user wants to secure a document, they can click the "secure" button, and the office suite could encrypt the document using something like PGP. That should provide enough security for most businesses, and for those that it doesn't, well they have their own security methods anyway.
If I were to build DRM into an app I was writing, I would use time-tested encryption. It's easier to develop, and the security has already been scrutinized by the crypto community. If I had to bet, I would guess that Office's crypto is time-tested.
these documents would not be viewable on platforms that do not have the DRM mechanism
That's the point. You can't open up a PGP encrypted file unless you have PGP. You can't view secure web pages unless you have the crypto in your browser. You can't read Office DRM stuff unless you have Office.
No one has to buy Office 2003. No one who does get Office 2003 has to use DRM. Anyone who does use the DRM is going to know that the readers of the data will need Office, and they'll be okay with that. If they weren't they wouldn't use it.
Your complaint about it being Windows-only is bork. An Office DRM user is intending the reader of his/her document to be using Office. It's the same way that the authors of Bash are intending the user of their app to be running Unix. Or that Apple intends for OS X to be run on a Mac. It's the same as complaining that Halo won't run on your VAX.
It's just a feature. Not a conspiracy. Not a means of taking over the world.
6. As you're reading the email for the first time, you're concerned and get a digital camera. Or get some co-workers in your office to read it, and sign affidavits later. The best bet is to get both. You blow the whistle, and send the evidence you just collected.
I imagine that a real pessimist wrote your original reference.
Yeah, provided the user doesn't, you know, remember it. Or print it out. Or have somebody looking over their shoulder.
This prevents someone from accidentally (or unknowingly) sending out sensitive information. If someone really wants to leak it, then there's no stopping them.
You'll note that the Beta 2 text doesn't say anything about "this is your end-all solution to keeping information from unauthorized use".
And the DoD isn't going to bet national security on this either. If you really don't want some data to get out, YOU DON'T TYPE IT UP AND GIVE IT TO PEOPLE. DRM in Office is going to let them use Office as they currently are, and lessen the risk of data leakage. That's it.
This is exactly how they are selling DRM. It's aimed squarely at the enterprise, so that sensitive data doesn't get out. No one else is going to care (and not use it).
By the time bugs make it to the war room, they've already been fixed. That meeting is exists to look at the risk of the code change, the importance of the bug, and the thoughts of people who are involved with the bug. I imagine it really sucks if you had put a lot of work into a fix, and then it doesn't ship because you missed a meeting.
Did anyone else look at their diagrams of the terahertz pixels? They were massive, stacked silicon structures. I can't imagine them getting the densities of those things anywhere near the densities of your run-of-the-mill digital camera anytime soon. It also explains the rather poor resolution of the sample images.
Hopefully improvements will let them be rolled into low cost medical equipment (fairly) soon. Or cheap, light x-ray goggles, as everyone seems to want:)
Slashdot Mirror
There is an entire section devoted to games--the requirements are different. Go look them up.
Microsoft does maintain labs to do testing of products awaiting logo certification. It seems reasonable to guess that there is a fee to cover that cost.
Here's a summary of the logo requirements, from Microsoft's Logo site:
List of Windows Fundamentals Requirements
1.1 Perform primary functionality and maintain stability
1.2 Any kernel-mode drivers that the application installs must pass verification testing on Windows XP
1.3 Any device or filter drivers included with the application must pass Windows HCT testing
1.4 Perform Windows version checking correctly
1.5 Support Fast User Switching and Remote Desktop
1.6 Support new visual styles
1.7 Support switching between tasks
Installation Requirements List
2.1 Do not attempt to replace files that are protected by Windows File Protection
2.2 Migrate from earlier versions of Windows
2.3 Do not overwrite non-proprietary files with older versions
2.4 Do not require a reboot inappropriately
2.5 Install to Program Files by default
2.6 Install any shared files that are not side-by-side to the correct locations
2.7 Support Add or Remove Programs properly
2.8 Support "All Users" installs
2.9 Support Autorun for CDs and DVDs
Data and Settings Requirements List
3.1 Default to the correct location for storing user-created data
3.2 Classify and store application data correctly
3.3 Deal gracefully with access-denied scenarios
3.4 Support running as a Limited User
This may be an initial glimpse at how Microsoft could introduce Digital Restrictions Management by ensuring all retail hardware and software products are approved by Redmond.
Logo requirements exist to ensure a quality user experience. NOT to force DRM onto the world through Office Depot. This is biased speculation on the part of the submitter, and timothy, objective as always, posted it on the front page.
All of the United States' chemical arsenal is slated for retirement and destruction. Specifically, all of our chemical munitions and agent stockpiles will be destroyed by 2007, in accordance with the UN's Chemical Weapons Convention. Read here.
I read an article recently (I wish I could remember where) that mentioned the Army is having some trouble disposing VX gas. The article mentioned that the EPA wouldn't issue a permit to move the VX to incinerators, because it's too dangerous. As such, it's being left in storage for now.
Why doesn't someone save an xml document with Word2K3 and then post the xml (or a link to it)? Then we could see how much formatting is in there.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that most universities have a mixed computing environment.
.NET class, then he'll have to justify it just like a prof who wanted to set up a lab of SGI boxes for an advanced graphics class.
The University of Washington, for example, has PC's, Macs and Unix server access for the general student population. I am a (former) computer science student, and my department is even more heterogeneous, and projects are done in the appropriate environment. We kernel hacked in Compilers, and so worked in Linux. We used Windows in Graphics and the games capstone, because the IDE and hardware support was much better. Many students used Java (some coded in Windows, some in emacs/vi) for their AI projects. I think this diversity is the way to go. I spent less time fighting with the tools and more time learning concepts than if had I been forced into (or out of) a specific environment.
Limiting the choice of computing environments and/or specific software solutions is dumb. It is like excluding certain sized hammers for carpentry, even though they might be the best hammers for the task at hand.
The curriculum would have to change every year according to Microsoft's marketing direction
Most schools now have a largely Microsoft computing environment, and they don't change thier curriculums around on Microsoft's whim. Universities (or rather, specific departments in the university) judge each hardware or software purchase based on their need, price, student benefit, etc. If a prof wants the latest PC's with Windows 2003 so he can teach a
You're right. It's still a disservice to those students however. Microsoft's happens to be the toolset used, in some fashion, by 90% of the computing world. Ideally, all alternatives would be present at a university setting, and students would receive exposure to each of them.
This couldn't be more true. You should use the right tool for the job. Sometimes it's Microsoft, sometimes Apple and sometimes *nix.
I'm not talking about computer-related studies either. As an example: what about psych students putting together a final presentation? Imagine trying to do that without powerpoint.
It's just plain stupid to lock 7000 people into one toolset.
You betray your bias. No one is going to convince you because you've decided to not be convinced. There's plenty of online resources which detail Microsoft's features (imaginative, stable, etc) and you should be competant enough to find them. A review of the upcoming Office on ZDNet would surely discuss new features, and comment on their "imaginative"-ness and stability. I would guess that most of your Microsoft-related reading to date has been on Slashdot, or sites with a similar outlook. You likely choose to read those sites, and those sites only. When you do come across a pro-Microsoft writing (such as this news post), your mindset is one of disbelief and extreme skepticism, not of objectivity.
If Microsoft hires the "best and brightest" college graduates, then why does so much of their software suck and why is all of it utterly devoid of any imagination?!
These statements are completely subjective. Saying that all of Microsoft's features were stolen from others is just as proposterous as claiming that all of them were completely original. You could make the same (clearly vacuous) claims of General Motors, Ford, Honda, etc--after all, no one company invented the internal combustion engine, automatic transmission, or rack-and-pinion steering themselves. All parties in any industry make innovations, and all parties borrow on each other's work. The phenomenon is known as progress.
You do demostrate ignorance, as your posts lack objectivity, factual evidence or finesse. A well-formed post, with some logic to support your stance, would help convince others in the future.
Practically zero in that the folks who run deep space probes do maintainence--rebooting circuits, flushing data buffers, moving parts around, etc. I have no idea if the power source has needed any such operations during its history.
Submarines use active fission, right? Pioneer's only harnesses energy from radioactive decay. It's much safer, and very low maintenance (for Pioneer, it's practically zero). I wasn't really positive on how often nuclear vessels need a refuelling--I thought I had read that the Nimitz's go for 8-10 years.
You're definitely right about nuclear is by far the safest energy available today. Its problem is that the word "nuclear" scares the bajesus out of folks who don't know any better.
...are really cool. Nuclear powered naval vessels don't last a third as long as Pioneer's radioactive batteries have.
It would be great if we could roll radioactive waste into similar devices to power cars, remote buildings, or even laptops--if we could effectively shield the power source with a small light enclosure.
You guys spent too much time on those posts :)
My problem with this statement is that you're assuming that Microsoft will do this. Just to screw up OSS.
First, what benefit would that action afford the customer? Why would they want plain documents level-0 encrypted? It'll break all their non-Office tools, like intranet search tools. It does not improve _any_ customer scenario relating to standard open Office data.
Then answer is that it will only screw the customer. That's stupid, because it will not work towards Microsoft's goal of selling more copies of Office.
Immediately assuming that MS will do *anything* that won't improve a customer scenario is paranoid, and deluded. It's like saying that MS's 50,000 employees are sitting around all day, trying to think up new ways of BF'ing their customers. I know quite a few folks who work there, and it certainly isn't their MO. Name one successful company that works that way? (Don't say 'Microsoft'--that's asinine)
Why in God's name would you make DRM the default? That would mean that email, by default, could not be printed or forwarded. Word docs, by default, couldn't be passed around and edited by a team.
Ease of use is inversely porportional to security. DRM is a pain in the ass. Microsoft's customers (and Microsoft knows this) will save DRM for data that really needs the security. Cutting the cord, as you put it, will probably drive many customers away from Office. From Microsoft's point of view, this is A Bad Thing.
BTW, saying "This hypothetical situation *might* happen in the future, therefore my argument is true" is a logical fallacy of truely epic scale. If you want to conclusively 'win' an argument, you'll need to use factual data.
Fair enough. You originally said:
:) Hopefully, this was a rational enough argument to be sufficient for your request. In conclusion, I'll restate my questions to you:
It is Microsoft who will control those rights, not you. You will only have the control that MS thinks you should have for as long as they think you should have it. You won't even own your own documents.
You restated your point as this--I'd really like to hear a justification:
We do not even have a method in theory where Microsoft would not be in control let alone in practise.
I still think these statements are absolute BS. I'll put down some thoughts, and then hand the burden of proof to you.
There are third party DRM solutions, some of which already integrate with Office. SyncCast, Perimele's Protector, Adhaero Doc were the first ones I found with Google--more exist. How is Microsoft's DRM going to be any different, in theory or practice, than these? I submit that it'll at least be more user-friendly, because of MS's ability to more tightly integrate DRM into Office's UI. The MS DRM solution could also be more performant and secure, again because of more knowledge and tighter integration with the app.
On the contrary it is based on what is theoreticaly possible.
Looking into one of these 3rd-party DRM solutions, I found a whitepaper on Adhaero's website. Its a little low on nitty-gritty details, and high on marketing, but it describes the essentials of a DRM system. The files are encrypted with Blowfish, and digitally signed. Included in each file is the permissions for the file and a list of users/groups who have access to the file. In order to open the file, you must be properly authenticated with an external server. Once authenticated, the server provides the key to decrypt the document. Attempting to forward the email, print the doc, edit the doc, etc fails because the Office app communicates to the DRM layer prior to doing any of those operations. Adhaero claims to have disabled cut/copy and print screening while DRM protected documents are viewed.
This is vulnerable in the following ways (as I see it):
- The key is stored in memory. However, it will be in the DRM process's memory space, and WinNT doesn't allow processes to read each-other's memory. Finding a vulnerability in WinNT's memory manager could expose this.
- Similarly, the unencrypted data is stored in Word/Outlook/Excel's memory. The same as above applies.
- You could snoop the video buffer for the image of the protected content. I have no idea if Windows allows any app to view this, or if it's only the provision of kernel-space code. I'll guess that Windows doesn't allow apps to view it, or there is a mechanism to make Windows deny viewing it (because this is such an obvious weakness).
- The user could stick their monitor, face down, on a Xerox machine and photocopy the data. The best engineered cryptosystem in the world cannot prevent this sort of maliciousness. Even the provably perfect One-Time Pad fails when the possessor of the plaintext hands it over to an attacker.
To speak to your original statement: I'd like to know why MS couldn't sell a server app which handles certificates, keys and proper authentication for DRM users. If your shop deployed such a server for your DRM users, I don't see any need for Microsoft be involved (after selling you the software). I'll go out on a limb and suggest that this may be a feature for the upcoming Windows Server 2003. As the admin, you would run that server, and you'd be the ultimate authority on the operation of DRM in your shop. Why again does Microsoft control all your documents in this case?
The 'theory' about DRM I've seen bantied about (which may be the theory you alluded to) is that you cannot protect data once it's in someone's head. In case you're thinking about that, then you need to realize that Office DRM isn't about absolute control of the information that a given user authors. If said user wanted to be absolutely sure that the information was only seen by an absolutely trusted audience, he'd never write it down. It would stay in his head.
Office DRM is about stopping accidental (or unknowing) leakage of sensitive data. Say I'm the boss at IniTech, LLC. We're developing a new console system (let's call it the PlayXBox). Joe random tester without DRM forwards the specs for the cool new system to a friend ("hey, he's a friend. what harm could it do?") outside the company. It's posted on slashdot and Oh Shit--our investors are now pissed and we're gonna lose money. Fast forward to the future, and we're working on PlayXBox]|[, but now we have DRM. When Joe random testor wants to forward specs to his buddy, an error message pops up that says he doesn't have permission to. He has to think twice now. If he's hellbent on mailing his buddy, he certainly can (by just retyping the spec sheet), but its now obviously intentional, and malign. He's _way_ more likely to get fired.
DRM is not the end-all solution to information security (and Microsoft didn't bill it as such). It's just another barrier keeping internal data internal. I'm guessing that corps that do deploy DRM and use it for sensitive data will have less leaks that those corps that don't. That's what Microsoft is marketing anyway.
<tangent>
You said a couple more things I'd like to address:
Do you know how many managers I have had tell me that they don't care about Microsoft prices? That as long as everyone pays it the competition is equal? That it just gets passed on to the customer anyway? That it helps them make a larger $ profit because their % profit looks smaller?
I've really been told all those things repeatedly. So yes, they will buy it, or enough of them will and Microsoft knows that. They know it will knock free software back considerably and yes, they know it will make them heaps of dollars (godammit they already have heaps, and mountains - can't even find a good word nowadays).
This sounds like a problem on the part of your managers, and not Microsoft. Despite all of Microsoft's shenanigans, all of their shady licencing, all of the rapid upgrade cycles, those dollars were in your manager's hands. They chose to give those dollars to Microsoft. Managers are empowered to make financial decisions, but they are also responsible for those decisions. Saying "Microsoft made me do it" is an attempt to skirt that responsibility.
</tangent>
I apologize for grammar, spelling and semantic mistakes. It's 5:30AM my time
- Is there any theoritical reason DRM cannot work, discounting malicious users who we cannot protect against?
- Is there any reason Microsoft cannot implement a decent DRM scheme? Pointing to the bug history of MS products won't do. That history merely lowers the chance of getting a robust product out the door, and doesn't unilateraly exclude the possibility.
- Is there any reason Microsoft cannot offer a DRM scheme that allows the customer control of the documents?
It is Microsoft who will control those rights, not you. You will only have the control that MS thinks you should have for as long as they think you should have it. You won't even own your own documents.
And you know this for sure? Really? You work for Microsoft, in Office, on the DRM? Gee golly, I'm glad such an authoritative source told me about that.
The honest truth is that nothing about the implementation of Office's DRM has been released. Any broad statements like this is absolute conjecture (and in this case FUD).
If you were right, then it would be pretty fricking stupid on Microsoft's part. What kind of corp in their right mind would buy into a cryptosystem that they didn't control? How much money would MS make on Office then?
DRM in Office docs is optional too. The DRM is only used if the author of the information turns it on. The plain old Word format is still there, as is the new Office11 XML Word format.
Will DRM documents work in OpenOffice? Nope. BUT: Will the other formats that Office11 uses (by default)? Yep. Is Microsoft going to force anyone to use DRM? Nope. Does this mean that groups that have MSOffice and OpenOffice can still inter-operate? Yep.
Given that, is this some evil scheme to take over the world? Nope. Seriously, folks around here need to take a breather. Believe it or not, MS can just stick features in their products only because it makes them more attractive to their customers. Not everything MS does is geared towards destroying Linux/taking over the world.
2) Embedding DRM into the document format itself makes little sense, other than for the above reason. Why not just integrate proven and time-tested encryption algorithms into Office suites? If a user wants to secure a document, they can click the "secure" button, and the office suite could encrypt the document using something like PGP. That should provide enough security for most businesses, and for those that it doesn't, well they have their own security methods anyway.
If I were to build DRM into an app I was writing, I would use time-tested encryption. It's easier to develop, and the security has already been scrutinized by the crypto community. If I had to bet, I would guess that Office's crypto is time-tested.
these documents would not be viewable on platforms that do not have the DRM mechanism
That's the point. You can't open up a PGP encrypted file unless you have PGP. You can't view secure web pages unless you have the crypto in your browser. You can't read Office DRM stuff unless you have Office.
No one has to buy Office 2003. No one who does get Office 2003 has to use DRM. Anyone who does use the DRM is going to know that the readers of the data will need Office, and they'll be okay with that. If they weren't they wouldn't use it.
Your complaint about it being Windows-only is bork. An Office DRM user is intending the reader of his/her document to be using Office. It's the same way that the authors of Bash are intending the user of their app to be running Unix. Or that Apple intends for OS X to be run on a Mac. It's the same as complaining that Halo won't run on your VAX.
It's just a feature. Not a conspiracy. Not a means of taking over the world.
Wasn't the Skylorav case persued under the DMCA because he broke Adobe's file format?
6. As you're reading the email for the first time, you're concerned and get a digital camera. Or get some co-workers in your office to read it, and sign affidavits later. The best bet is to get both. You blow the whistle, and send the evidence you just collected.
I imagine that a real pessimist wrote your original reference.
Yeah, provided the user doesn't, you know, remember it. Or print it out. Or have somebody looking over their shoulder.
This prevents someone from accidentally (or unknowingly) sending out sensitive information. If someone really wants to leak it, then there's no stopping them.
You'll note that the Beta 2 text doesn't say anything about "this is your end-all solution to keeping information from unauthorized use".
And the DoD isn't going to bet national security on this either. If you really don't want some data to get out, YOU DON'T TYPE IT UP AND GIVE IT TO PEOPLE. DRM in Office is going to let them use Office as they currently are, and lessen the risk of data leakage. That's it.
This is exactly how they are selling DRM. It's aimed squarely at the enterprise, so that sensitive data doesn't get out. No one else is going to care (and not use it).
By the time bugs make it to the war room, they've already been fixed. That meeting is exists to look at the risk of the code change, the importance of the bug, and the thoughts of people who are involved with the bug. I imagine it really sucks if you had put a lot of work into a fix, and then it doesn't ship because you missed a meeting.
Did anyone else look at their diagrams of the terahertz pixels? They were massive, stacked silicon structures. I can't imagine them getting the densities of those things anywhere near the densities of your run-of-the-mill digital camera anytime soon. It also explains the rather poor resolution of the sample images.
:)
Hopefully improvements will let them be rolled into low cost medical equipment (fairly) soon. Or cheap, light x-ray goggles, as everyone seems to want